United States v. Zuniga Garcia

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-20083
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Pedro Zuniga Garcia,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-718-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Pedro Zuniga Garcia pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United
States after removal or deportation. The district court sentenced him to 12
months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release. Zuniga Garcia
argues that the district court erred by including in the written judgment a

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-20083 Document: 00515684201 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2020

No. 20-20083
2
special work-authorization condition of supervised release that he claims was
not orally pronounced at sentencing.
When a defendant challenges a condition of supervised release for the
first time on appeal, the plain-error standard applies if he had notice of the
condition and an opportunity to object in the district court. See United States
v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559-61 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), petition for cert. filed
(U.S. Sept. 24, 2020) (No. 20-5836). That standard “is ‘difficult’ to
overcome; it requires a defendant to show an obvious error that impacted his
substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or reputation
of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 559 (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
129, 135 (2009)). Here, Zuniga Garcia fails to show the first of the four plain-
error hurdles for the same reason that plain-error review applies: the district
court informed him of the work-authorization condition found in the
presentence report’s appendix by adopting that document, and he had an
opportunity to object but failed to do so. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 560.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-20083 Document: 00515684201 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2020